James Kirkup is The Telegraph's Executive Editor (Politics). He was previously the Telegraph's Political Editor and has worked at Westminster since 2001.

The cost of pensions and pensioner benefits is rising fast. Can older people be persuaded to accept cuts?

One of the curiosities of British political debate about social security spending is that so much time is spent talking about small stuff, and so little about big stuff. So politicians talk a lot about cutting, curbing and controlling working-age benefits, but rather less about the state pension.

Roughly speaking, Jobseekers' Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support and Incapacity Benefit cost £20 billion a year. That's quite a lot.

But the basic state pension costs £80 billion, and pensioner benefits like pension credit and the winter fuel payment cost another £12 billion or so. That really is a lot: it's about one in every eight pounds the State spends every year.

And it's going to go up, because we're all getting older and living longer. Just about any credible economic forecaster will tell you that age-related spending is going to consume an ever greater share of public spending. Policy Exchange today suggests that unchanged, pensioner benefits will cost another £40 billion, for instance. The only way to meet that rising costs will be more tax or more cuts elsewhere.

If you don't fancy more tax and more cuts, the alternative is to reduce spending on pensions and pensioner benefits. But as we all know, pensioners vote, so politicians don't like to do that. That reticence has been a cornerstone of British politics for several years. It explains another under-reported fact: relative to younger folk, the old are often doing OK in the age of austerity. The IFS estimated earlier this month that the incomes of those in their 60s and 70s have continued to rise since the recession. In contrast, median (middle) income among people in their 20s fell by 12 per cent between 2007–08 and 2011–12, after adjusting for inflation – the largest fall of any age group.

Could that cornerstone be shifted? Could pensioners (and soon-to-be pensioners) be persuaded to accept reductions in pension entitlement? A poll today suggests that the answer is Yes. Personally, I'm not wholly convinced by that single poll, but nor do I think that the persuasion effort is doomed.

A lot of politics today assumes that people are self-interested and selfish. They're not. Most people care about at least some other people. In the case of older workers and pensioners, they often care about younger people, especially the ones they're related to.

So any politician thinking about grasping the pension nettle should remember to appeal to older people's better nature. Do they want to hang on to their benefits if the consequence is that their children and grandchildren must work more and get less? Do they want to be the first generation in modern times that ends their days better off than the generation that will come after them?

Last year, I sketched out the speech George Osborne should have given about the "granny tax". It applies equally well to the much bigger question of pension spending, so I'm going to plagiarise myself here:

Britain and its place in the world have changed markedly over the last half century. For reasons beyond anyone’s control, the advantages and opportunities that were afforded to some of today’s pensioners cannot be guaranteed to younger generations. Every generation hopes that the next will be better off than their predecessors. But today’s grandparents face the painful possibility that their own children and grandchildren will end up not better, but worse off than they themselves are now.

“I know that the people affected by my changes have worked hard for what they have. They are an example to us all: their hard work and sacrifice has made this country what it is today. It is a difficult decision, but I am asking them to make another small sacrifice. The beneficiaries of that sacrifice will be younger people trying to make their way in the world, working for their families and the eventual hope of a comfortable retirement. So yes, I am asking grandparents to give up a little in order to help their children’s generation. I believe the good, generous and prudent people unfortunately affected by this policy will agree with me that this is necessary and fair.

Really, it could work: older people are more generous and fair than politicians often give them credit for. They'll accept difficult and painful necessities — as they have all their lives — especially when politicians are straight with them.

Oh, and in the meantime, don't forget the young. Politicians of all sorts should be telling young people to do an awful lot more to provide for their own retirement wouldn't hurt either. Auto-enrolled occupational pensions are a good start, but that's a systemic change, not a cultural one. Start saving now, kids. No-one likes eating cat food.